The only reason your statement here doesn't seem completely absurd is because you are invoking an issue which people have an acute emotional reaction on, to the point where even something which would be viewed as paranoid in another setting seems acceptable.

I shouldn't be surprised if people react in a paranoid or irrational manner, no. But I would hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard.

In this case we are talking about a very humane and nuanced thinker, and under normal circumstances we should in fact withhold insinuation of malice unless evidence exists. It is called the principle of charity.

Well, no. Scott invoked the issue here, not me. And obviously, people see evidence of malice, which is why we’re having this whole debate.

But again, there’s nothing abnormal or “paranoid” about inferring someone’s intentions from their writing. You’ve done it yourself, which is why you described him as “humane”. Why shouldn't others be able to arrive at different conclusions?

> And obviously, people see evidence of malice, which is why we’re having this whole debate.

Because the entire point of attempting to force one to take a stance is to further whatever the narrative may be, or to cancel counter narratives. There is no other point. There’s nothing wrong with arriving at your own conclusion but stop there if you don’t agree. Don’t cancel, dox, or otherwise force their opinion to match yours.

No one is being “forced” to take a stance, or canceled or doxxed.

Yes, clearly. Come out from under your rock. Or try to view things from the alternate perspective. If this is not the intent, this is full well the idea has been implanted over the last 4 years. As a somewhat related source of evidence, see what they did with the Trump trial? It's mostly about what he did NOT say. This is one example, there are many many more from the last 4 years.